​New Bill Proposes College Transcripts Include Rape Charges

[apepi]

And there are plenty of cases where evidence for malfeasance does not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard that's expected of criminal court. But may be convincing enough for administrative action. Which is what these universities are handling.

If there's specific instances you want to dig into where a particular school was far too willing to side with one party in the case, that's fine, but the concept that universities can apply administrative judgements against their own students, according to the standards of behaviour they expect of their student population, that's not a crazy idea that's somehow unacceptable.

There are plenty of cases where a student may not be able to be found guilty in a court of law, but absolutely SHOULD be kicked out of the college with a sexual infraction on their record. Same way you could be fired from your job for sexual harassment, even if that action wasn't actionably illegal according to the law.

The thing is, to me it sometimes does not even seem to go to the police or a jury for it to even happen. The schools tend to deal with it on their own. And I think that is good that it is hard to charge, here's thing, that is how it should be. There is a difference from being convincing and actually doing the crime.

Businesses are not colleges/universities and should not offer the same protections.

[Gmollster11]

Horrible idea.

Ex: Me: "I wasnt allowed to goto my new school."

Friend: "Why?"

Me: " I told a pretty girl that she looked hot in her Booty shorts, now I'm officially a sexual predator".

No thanks!

[Auxora]

The big distinction I'd be massively against would be if it included just charges and not conviction. It's pretty much a foundation of society that if someone is found innocent that their record is clean and they don't have anything held against them. So it definitely should not include charges that didn't reach a conviction. Just about any above minimum wage job, even those paying $11/hr now do background checks that would include a conviction in a criminal record, so I'm not sure why including it also in a college transcript is necessary.

As far as including just charges without a conviction, you'd risk ruining someone's life without any sort of trial. There are definitely people out there that are vindictive and crazy that will accuse a person they dated of a crime just for breaking up with them as revenge. In fact I know someone who did that. The person she accused didn't do the crime and once that was proved nothing came of it, but this could have destroyed the accused person's life. Actually, that person did it multiple times to various ex-boyfriends after they broke up with her (after realizing she was crazy), and nothing ever happened to her for making false claims.

[Theodarzna]

Don't worry to much, endus just likes the idea of folks in schools having the power to ruin the lives of students they do not like. Authoritarians such as himself bask in such power.

The system as is is an authoritarian dream, the rules are so vague you can apply them to anyone and everyone you want to and the standard of proof is so low they will always be found guilty.

[Vyxn]

Which isn't functionally different from how corporate policies on sexual harassment function, where you can get fired for such for things like "asking a coworker out on a date a couple times" or "hugging for just a little too long" or the like.

So it's kind of boggling that it's suddenly a huge issue when it comes to universities.

Offenses that would be flagged on your transcripts aren't criminal cases, they're administrative rulings. How is that not obvious?



The justice system never "clears" anyone. The furthest they will go is "we have not been able to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, at this point in time".

And again; we're talking about administrative actions, here, not criminal cases.

but because the colleges kangaroo court decision that ignores proper due process to come to their decision hold the same weight and consequences in the eyes of a possible future employer the university needs to explain that on the transcript they need to provide in writing that the decision they concluded was in violation of that students due process and there is no legal standing that the student is indeed guilty of what he was accused of

[Endus]

but because the colleges kangaroo court discussion that ignores proper due process to come to their decision hold the same weight and consequences in the eyes of a possible future employer the university needs to explain that on the transcript they need to provide in writing that the decision they concluded was in violation of that students due process and there is no legal standing that the student is indeed guilty of what he was accused of

Nothing you've said here is true.

1> You have no right to "due process" regarding administrative rulings, in the first place. Just like you don't in workplace disputes. The only way you could is if such were guaranteed as part of your agreement with that employer/college; it is NOT a legal right in any respect in these circumstances.

2> The university is under no special obligation to justify their decisions, and any request for them to do so should be coming from those possible future employers, NOT something the university is somehow obliged to do.

3> There was no "violation of due process", see #1.

4> There was no claim of any "legal standing", so that part's just straight-up invention on your part.

[Vyxn]

Nothing you've said here is true.

1> You have no right to "due process" regarding administrative rulings, in the first place. Just like you don't in workplace disputes. The only way you could is if such were guaranteed as part of your agreement with that employer/college; it is NOT a legal right in any respect in these circumstances.

2> The university is under no special obligation to justify their decisions, and any request for them to do so should be coming from those possible future employers, NOT something the university is somehow obliged to do.

3> There was no "violation of due process", see #1.

4> There was no claim of any "legal standing", so that part's just straight-up invention on your part.

you cant pronounce one of being guilty of a crime with out due process and found guilty in a court of law it is why a news outlets aren't allowed to call a suspected murderer a murderer unless he was found guilty of murder they have to say a murder suspect

A college cant call a student a rapist unless he indeed was found guilty of rape in a court of law it defamation if they do


a business can fire you for lets say suspension of theft and through an in house investigation they determine that he did, but if some one calls and ask why was this employee fired you cant say because he is a thief that is defamation because he wasn't found guilty of that crime in a court of law that employer has to say because we suspected him of theft

[Endus]

you cant pronounce one of being guilty of a crime with out due process and found guilty in a court of law it is why a news outlets aren't allowed to call a suspected murderer a murderer unless he was found guilty of murder they have to say a murder suspect

And? That's literally not happening in any of these cases.

A college cant call a student a rapist unless he indeed was found guilty of rape in a court of law it defamation if they do

That's not how freedom of speech works, no. You are COMPLETELY wrong about this. They just have to have justifiable cause on which to make that claim, regardless of whether criminal charges have been filed or not. Otherwise, accused rapists would be able to sue any new media that called them a "rapist" before the verdict was in, even if they were caught in the middle of the act with three victims chained up in their basement and video of every one of their crimes.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm fine with this so long as the university tribunal courts are reined in.

The courts were created as a knee jerk response from an order handed down from Obama to crack down on campus rapes and sexual assaults. Before this, rapes and sexual assaults were often covered up by universities as it went on THEIR record how much sexual crime was going on on their campus, and presented to potential applicants. So to suppress this, they would often force victims to shut up about it, sometimes with bribes of funding and other perks.

But as more realized this was going on, there was an outcry to this kind of cover up from universities, and Obama threatened to halt funding to universities that did not immediately crack down on sexual assaults, passed a bill to give them control over sexual assault cases, and said "Have at it." I realize a lot of conservatives cry their little eyes out about government oversight, but these university tribunals are the exact reason government often oversees things, because it could go horribly wrong.

So get rid of the almost absolute power that universities have in overseeing sexual assault cases, make it a trial by peers that must prove guilt and otherwise assume innocence (I know that's not a particularly popular thing recently, what with all the accusations of Hillary being guilty of every crime under the sun...).

Assuming all of that happens, sure, slap sexual misdeeds on transcripts for all to see.

[Vyxn]

And? That's literally not happening in any of these cases.



That's not how freedom of speech works, no. You are COMPLETELY wrong about this. They just have to have justifiable cause on which to make that claim, regardless of whether criminal charges have been filed or not. Otherwise, accused rapists would be able to sue any new media that called them a "rapist" before the verdict was in, even if they were caught in the middle of the act with three victims chained up in their basement and video of every one of their crimes.

and guess what they do and have won many defamation and slander cases against news outlets for calling a rape suspect or murder suspect a rapist or murder they have to say suspect or alleged until they are found guilty of the accused clime

[Osmeric]

This law sounds unconstitutional. It's a government mandated punishment without recourse to due process.

[Endus]

and guess what they do and have won many defamation and slander cases against news outlets for calling a rape suspect or murder suspect a rapist or murder they have to say suspect or alleged until they are found guilty of the accused clime

Again, all they need demonstrate is that they had reason to believe the statement was true. And they do NOT need to meet the standard of evidence required of a court of law.

You're just utterly wrong about how this stuff works.

- - - Updated - - -

This law sounds unconstitutional. It's a government mandated punishment without recourse to due process.

You should really go back and read the Constitution. The due process clauses don't apply to "government-mandated punishment" as a whole, just a specific category thereof.

[Independent voter]

This is got to be fake news. lol

"So, Mr Jones is it? I see you got an A in chemistry, but you have two rapes. Can't you explain those rapes?"

[Osmeric]

You should really go back and read the Constitution. The due process clauses don't apply to "government-mandated punishment" as a whole, just a specific category thereof.

I believe it would apply here. Due process applies to both criminal and civil law, and to "state actors" (private entities acting under the color of law, which would apply here.)

The last part should be obvious: if the government is prohibited from doing X, they cannot pass a law requiring someone else to do X.

[Endus]

I believe it would apply here. Due process applies to both criminal and civil law, and to "state actors" (private entities acting under the color of law, which would apply here.)

The last part should be obvious: if the government is prohibited from doing X, they cannot pass a law requiring someone else to do X.

Administrative decisions are neither civil nor criminal law, and do not fall under the due process clause of the Constitution.

Otherwise, you're saying that literally every civil service employee, at every level, has to have full due process for every reprimand given, every firing that occurs, and so forth. That's just flat-out not how things have ever worked.

[Osmeric]

Administrative decisions are neither civil nor criminal law, and do not fall under the due process clause of the Constitution.

Otherwise, you're saying that literally every civil service employee, at every level, has to have full due process for every reprimand given, every firing that occurs, and so forth. That's just flat-out not how things have ever worked.

No, administrative decision very much do fall under the due process clause. It's just that the administrative machinery can in many circumstances satisfy the requirements of that clause. When it does not, it can be challenged.

[Endus]

No, administrative decision very much do fall under the due process clause.

Because you say so? That's not how this works.

It's just that the administrative machinery can in many circumstances satisfy the requirements of that clause. When it does not, it can be challenged.

I'm not sure you understand what "due process" means. It doesn't apply to extralegal concepts.

[Osmeric]

Because you say so? That's not how this works.



I'm not sure you understand what "due process" means. It doesn't apply to extralegal concepts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

"Procedural Due Process"

"This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials."

[Endus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

"Procedural Due Process"

"This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials."

Which, again, doesn't apply. As you'd know, if you read the rest of that entry. The university is not the government, and what you're describing only applies to government.

[Hooked]

So no more basketball and football teams in colleges?